Although Lin Yutang claimed "Face cannot be translated or defined",[1] compare these definitions:

The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self, delineated in terms of approved social attributes.[2]

Face is the respectability and/or deference which a person can claim for himself from others, by virtue of the relative position he occupies in his social network and the degree to which he is judged to have functioned adequately in that position as well as acceptably in his general conduct. (Ho 1975:883)

[Face] is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate (and assume each other's cooperation) in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face. (Brown and Levinson 1978:66)

Face is a sense of worth that comes from knowing one's status and reflecting concern with the congruency between one's performance or appearance and one's real worth. (Huang 1987:71)

"The concept of face is, of course, Chinese in origin" (Ho 1975:867), yet many languages have "face" terms that metaphorically mean "prestige; honor; reputation". Marcel Mauss, who sociologically studied the Kwakwaka'wakw (formerly known as Kwakiutl) and Haida nations in British Columbia, interpreted the Kwak'wala word q'elsem (lit. "rotten face") meaning "stingy potlatch-giver; one who gives no feast".

Kwakiutl and Haida noblemen have the same notion of "face" as the Chinese mandarin or officer. It is said of one of the great mythical chiefs who gave no feast that he had a "rotten face". The expression is more apt than it is even in China; for to lose one's face is to lose one's spirit, which is truly the "face", the dancing mask, the right to incarnate a spirit and wear an emblem or totem. It is the veritable persona which is at stake, and it can be lost in the potlatch just as it can be lost in the game of gift-giving, in war, or through some error in ritual. (1954:38)

The term "face" keeps cropping up in our conversation, and it seems such a simple expression that I doubt whether many people give it much thought. Recently, however, we have heard this word on the lips of foreigners too, who seem to be studying it. They find it extremely hard to understand, but believe that "face" is the key to the Chinese spirit and that grasping it will be like grabbing a queue twenty-four years ago [when wearing a queue was compulsory] – everything else will follow. (1934, 1959:129)

Lin Yutang considered the psychology of "face".

Interesting as the Chinese physiological face is, the psychological face makes a still more fascinating study. It is not a face that can be washed or shaved, but a face that can be "granted" and "lost" and "fought for" and "presented as a gift". Here we arrive at the most curious point of Chinese social psychology. Abstract and intangible, it is yet the most delicate standard by which Chinese social intercourse is regulated.[1]

Mianmu, which occurs in the Shijing, Guanzi, and other Chinese classics, is the oldest Chinese word for figurative "face" (Carr 1992:43). David Yau-fai Ho (1974:241) describes timian as "an expression without an exact equivalent in English", meaning "the social front, the ostensible display of one's social standing to the public. It is both a prerogative and an implicit obligation for the socially prominent to be particular about." Mianzi is a measurable and quantifiable concept of "face". Hsien-chin Hu says it,

can be borrowed, struggled for, added to, padded, — all terms indicating a gradual increase in volume. It is built up through initial high position, wealth, power, ability, through cleverly establishing social ties to a number of prominent people, as well as through avoidance of acts that would cause unfavorable comment. (1944:61)

Lian 臉 "face; countenance; respect; reputation; prestige" is seen in several "face" words:

Hu (1944:51-52) contrasts meiyou lian 沒有臉 (lit. "without face") "audacious; wanton; shameless" as "the most severe condemnation that can be made of a person" and buyao lian 不要臉 (lit. "don't want face") "shameless; selfishly inconsiderate" as "a serious accusation meaning that ego does not care what society thinks of his character, that he is ready to obtain benefits for himself in defiance of moral standards."

Recent studies of Chinese "face" have principally accepted Hu Hsien-chin's original distinction between a person's mianzi "social status" and lian "moral character". Hu (1944:45) dichotomized mianzi as "a reputation achieved through getting on in life, through success and ostentation" versus lian which "represents the confidence of society in the integrity of ego's moral character, the loss of which makes it impossible for him to function properly within the community". Ho qualified this dichotomy:

although the distinction between the two sets of criteria for judging face – based on judgments of character and, broadly, of the amoral aspects of social performance – is justified, it cannot be anchored to a linguistic distinction between the two terms, lien and mien-tzu, as proposed by Hu. However, we may continue to use these terms in the senses that Hu has defined. (1975:868)

On the basis of experiments showing that Chinese high school students defined losses of mianzi and lian interchangeably, while university students distinguished them, Huang Shuanfan concluded that:

Succinctly, among college subjects, loss of mianzi is more definitely tied to failure to measure up to one's sense of self-esteem or to what is expected by others, whereas loss of lian is closely tied to transgression of social codes. Hu's (1944) forty year old distinction between the two Chinese concepts of faces appears to stand very well, even today. (1987:73)

Lian is the confidence of society in a person's moral character, while mianzi represents social perceptions of a person's prestige. For a person to maintain face is important with Chinese social relations because face translates into power and influence and affects goodwill. A loss of lian would result in a loss of trust within a social network, while a loss of mianzi would likely result in a loss of authority.

The English semantic field for "face" words meaning "prestige; honor" is smaller than the corresponding Chinese field, but historical dictionaries more accurately record its history. The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989) documents how the English community in China originated lose face and save face in the late 19th century, and how morphological variants like face-saver subsequently developed.

The country begins to feel that Government consented to arrangements by which China has lost face; the officials have long been conscious that they are becoming ridiculous in the eyes of the people, seeing that where a foreigner is concerned they can neither enforce a Chinese right, nor redress a Chinese grievance, even on Chinese soil. (1901:225)

Loss of face occurs in The Times (August 3, 1929): "Each wishes to concede only what can be conceded without loss of 'face'."

8f.to save one's face: to avoid being disgraced or humiliated. Similarly, to save (another's) face. Hence save-face adj. = face-saving … Originally used by the English community in China, with reference to the continual devices among the Chinese to avoid incurring or inflicting disgrace. The exact phrase appears not to occur in Chinese, but ‘to lose face’ (tiu lien), and ‘for the sake of his face’, are common.

For the earliest usage examples, the OED gives the following. Save one's face is recorded in the Westminster Gazette (April 5, 1898): "Unquestionably the process of saving one's face leads to curious results in other countries than China." Save-face is found in Chambers Journal of Literature, Science and Arts (1917): "The civilian native staff had bolted at the first sign of trouble, 'going to report to the authorities' being their 'save face' for it!" Face-saving first appears in Enoch A. Bennett's Lilian (1922): "She had been trapped beyond any chance of a face-saving lie." Face-saver, defined as "something that 'saves one's face', " originated in Edgar Snow's Scorched Earth (1941): "As a face-saver, however, Doihara was given enough support, from the Kwantung Army in Manchuria." Carr (1993:74) notes, "It is significant that the earliest usages for English lose face, save face, save-face and face-saver refer to China, while later ones are more international in application."

By expanding "lose face" into "save face", English developed oppositely from Chinese, which has many "lose face" collocations, but none literally meaning "save face". Yao mianzi 要面子 "eager to gain reputation; be concerned about appearances" is (Hu 1944:58) "the closest Chinese approximation" for "save face".

The underlying reason for this difference is that English "face" lacks the sociological contrast between Chinese lian and mianzi. Since Chinese lian is ethically absolute while mianzi is socially quantitative, losing the former is more significant. According to Huang:

The fact that Chinese lexicalizes losing face (丟臉, 沒面子), but not gaining face is a potent reminder that losing face has far more serious implications for one's sense of self-esteem or decency than gaining face. (1987:71)

Ho explains how "losing" one's "face" is more sociodynamically significant than "saving" it.

Previous writers on face have treated losing face and gaining face simply as if they were opposite outcomes in a social encounter and have thus failed to notice the basic difference between two social processes that are involved. In the first instance, while it is meaningful to speak of both losing and gaining mien-tzu it is meaningful to speak only of losing lien. One does not speak of gaining lien because, regardless of one's station in life, one is expected to behave in accordance with the precepts of the culture; correctly conceptualized, exemplary conduct adds not to one's lien, but to one's mien-tzu. (1975:870)

The lose verb in lose face means "fail to maintain" (cf. lose one's life), while the save in save face means "avoid loss/damage" (cf. save one's honor). "The English creation of save face as the opposite of lose face was arbitrary because lose has other antonyms: win, find, keep, catch, maintain, preserve, gain, and regain", Carr (1993:77) notes, "Speakers occasionally use the last three (esp. gain) regarding face 'prestige', though less frequently than save". Another usage example is give face, which is included in the Wiktionary but not the OED2.

Among the English words of Chinese origin, lose face is an uncommon verb phrase and a unique semantic loan translation. Most Anglo-Chinese borrowings are nouns (Yuan 1981:250), with a few exceptions such as to kowtow, to Shanghai, to brainwash, and lose face. English face meaning "prestige; honor" is the only case of a Chinese semantic loan. Semantic loans extend an indigenous word's meaning in conformity with a foreign model (e.g., French realiser "achieve; create; construct" used in the sense of English realize). The vast majority of English words from Chinese are ordinary loanwords with regular phonemic adaptation (e.g., chop suey < Cantonese tsap-sui雜碎 "miscellaneous pieces"). A few are calques where a borrowing is blended with native elements (e.g., chopsticks < Pidgin chop "quick, fast" < Cantonese kap急 "quick" + stick). Face meaning "prestige" is technically a "loan synonym" owing to semantic overlap between the native English meaning "outward semblance; effrontery" and the borrowed Chinese meaning "prestige; dignity".

John Orr (1953) coined the term "invisible exports" to describe how French forme, ouverte, and courir borrowed the sports meanings of English form, open, and run. Chinese lose face is an imperceptible English import because it appears to be a predictable semantic extension of face, and not a noticeable foreign borrowing. This invisible face "prestige; status" loan is, Chan and Kwok (1985:60) explain, "so firmly established in the English vocabulary that the average native speaker is unaware of its Chinese origin."

When face acquired its Chinese sense of "prestige; honor", it filled a lexical gap in the English lexicon. Chan and Kwok write,

The Chinese has supplied a specific "name" for a "thing" embodying qualities not expressed or possibly not fully expressed, by a number of terms in English. The aptness of the figurative extension has probably also played a part (1985:61-62).

Carr concludes,

The nearest English synonyms of the apt figurative face are prestige, honor, respect, dignity, status, reputation, social acceptance, or good name. Ho (1975:874-880) explains how "face" is a more basic meaning than "status", "dignity", or "honor". "Prestige" appears to be semantically closest to "face", however a person can be said to have face but not prestige, or vice versa. Prestige is not necessary; one can easily live without it, but hardly without "face". (1993:87-88)

Among South Slavs, especially in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, the word obraz (Cyrillic: образ) is used as a traditional expression for honor and the sociological concept of face. Medieval Slavic documents have shown that the word has been used with various meanings, such as form, image, character, person, symbol, face, figure, statue, idol, guise and mask. Serbo-Croatian also has a derived adjective bezobrazan "without face", used to associate shame to a person.[3]

"Face" is central to sociology and sociolinguistics. Martin C. Yang analyzed eight sociological factors in losing or gaining face: the kinds of equality between the people involved, their ages, personal sensibilities, inequality in social status, social relationship, consciousness of personal prestige, presence of a witness, and the particular social value/sanction involved.[4]

The sociologist Erving Goffman introduced the concept of "face" into social theory with his (1955) article "On Face-work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements of Social Interaction" and (1967) book Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. According to Goffman's dramaturgical perspective, face is a mask that changes depending on the audience and the variety of social interaction. People strive to maintain the face they have created in social situations. They are emotionally attached to their faces, so they feel good when their faces are maintained; loss of face results in emotional pain, so in social interactions people cooperate by using politeness strategies to maintain each other's faces.

"Face" is sociologically universal. People "are human", Joseph Agassi and I. C. Jarvie (1969:140) believe, "because they have face to care for – without it they lose human dignity." Ho elaborates:

The point is that face is distinctively human. Anyone who does not wish to declare his social bankruptcy must show a regard for face: he must claim for himself, and must extend to others, some degree of compliance, respect, and deference in order to maintain a minimum level of effective social functioning. While it is true that the conceptualization of what constitutes face and the rules governing face behavior vary considerably across cultures, the concern for face is invariant. Defined at a high level of generality, the concept of face is a universal. (1976:881-2)

The sociological concept of face has recently been reanalysed through consideration of the Chinese concepts of face (mianzi and lian) which permits deeper understanding of the various dimensions of experience of face, including moral and social evaluation, and its emotional mechanisms (Qi 2011).

Tae-Seop Lim and John Waite Bowers (1991) claim that face is the public image that a person claims for himself. Within this claim there are three dimensions. "Autonomy face" describes a desire to appear independent, in control, and responsible. "Fellowship face" describes a desire to seem cooperative, accepted, and loved. "Competence face" describes a desire to appear intelligent, accomplished, and capable (Miller 2005).

Masumoto, Oetzel, Takai, Ting-Toomey, & Yokochi (2000) defined "facework" as "the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or challenge another person's face". In terms of interpersonal communication, Facework refers to an individual’s identity in a social world and how that identity is created, reinforced, diminished, and maintained in communicative interactions.

Among the most troublesome kinds of problems that arise in negotiation are the intangible issues related to loss of face. In some instances, protecting against loss of face becomes so central an issue that it swamps the importance of the tangible issues at stake and generates intense conflicts that can impede progress toward agreement and increase substantially the costs of conflict resolution. (1977:275)

the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation. (1990)

The psychology of "face" is another field of research. Wolfram Eberhard, who analyzed Chinese "guilt" and "sin" in terms of literary psychology, debunked the persistent myth that "face" is peculiar to the Chinese rather than a force in every human society. Eberhard noted

It is mainly in the writings of foreigners that we find the stress upon shame in Chinese society; it is they who stated that the Chinese were typically afraid of "losing their face". It is they who reported many cases of suicide because of loss of face, or of suicide in order to punish another person after one's death as a ghost, or to cause through suicide endless difficulties or even punishment to the other person. But in the Chinese literature used here, including also the short stories, I did not once find the phrase "losing face"; and there was no clear case of suicide because of shame alone. (1967:119-120)

The Chinese University of Hong Kong social psychologist Michael Harris Bond observed that in Hong Kong,

Given the importance of having face and of being related to those who do, there is a plethora of relationship politics in Chinese culture. Name dropping, eagerness to associate with the rich and famous, the use of external status symbols, sensitivity to insult, lavish gift-giving, the use of titles, the sedulous avoidance of criticism, all abound, and require considerable readjustment for someone used to organizing social life by impersonal rules, frankness, and greater equality. (1991:59)

Linguists have analyzed the semantics of "face". Huang (1985, cited above) used prototype semantics to differentiate lian and mianzi. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphors We Live By (1980:37) emphasizes "the face for the person" metonymy. Keith Allan (1986) extended "face" into theoretical semantics. He postulated it to be an essential element of all language interchanges, and claimed (1986:10): "A satisfactory theory of linguistic meaning cannot ignore questions of face presentation, nor other politeness phenomena that maintain the co-operative nature of language interchange."

Ho, David Yao-fai. (1974). "Face, Social Expectations, and Conflict Avoidance, " in Readings in Cross-cultural Psychology; Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Held in Hong Kong, August 1972, ed. by John Dawson and Walter Lonner, 240-251. Hong Kong University Press.